Iraq is about oil, period. It's about securing a supply of oil for
decades to come. No politician wants to admit that, but that's the
truth. That's the ulterior motive. That doesn't make it a bad
thing. Without oil this country is screwed. Even that tofu the
whining liberals eat comes by truck.
Bush's popularity
If we draw down troops from Iraq, we have secured
nothing at all. Stand alone Iraq is certainly not
going to let the US control its' crude flow.
If 'ulterior motives' are involved, what makes you so
smart?
···
--- mickeycrimm <mickeycrimm@yahoo.com> wrote:
Iraq is about oil, period. It's about securing a
supply of oil for
decades to come. No politician wants to admit that,
but that's the
truth. That's the ulterior motive. That doesn't
make it a bad
thing. Without oil this country is screwed. Even
that tofu the
whining liberals eat comes by truck.
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL � Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
If it's all about the oil, and W says we're winning why is gas so
expensive. Damn, I miss prosperity and Clinton.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, jim thompson <meldrone@y...>
wrote:
···
If we draw down troops from Iraq, we have secured
nothing at all. Stand alone Iraq is certainly not
going to let the US control its' crude flow.If 'ulterior motives' are involved, what makes you so
smart?--- mickeycrimm <mickeycrimm@y...> wrote:
> Iraq is about oil, period. It's about securing a
> supply of oil for
> decades to come. No politician wants to admit that,
> but that's the
> truth. That's the ulterior motive. That doesn't
> make it a bad
> thing. Without oil this country is screwed. Even
> that tofu the
> whining liberals eat comes by truck.
>
>
>
>__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mickeycrimm" <mickeycrimm@y...>
wrote:
Iraq is about oil, period. It's about securing a supply of oil for
decades to come. No politician wants to admit that, but that's the
truth. That's the ulterior motive. That doesn't make it a bad
thing. Without oil this country is screwed. Even that tofu the
whining liberals eat comes by truck.
I must assume you didn't vote for Bush in the last election since he
lied to you about Iraq ...
By the way, I also believe oil was a major consideration. However,
IMO it's MORE about the GWBs' oil company buddies making obscene
profits than it is about you and I getting the oil.
There was NO immediate threat of oil problems before the war (in fact
the war has increased the threat). OPECs livelihood depends on
selling oil and they have nothing to gain by cutting off the
supply ... even for decades to come and our reliance on oil subsides
due to hybrids/fuel cells/etc.
It seems to me there is little justification for a statement
like "Iraq is about oil, period." Of course, I doubt I will ever
change your mind.
PS. I'm not a liberal.
RGM--You're like an insecure born-again non-committal who runs around
forums making believe he knows more than anyone who posts reason.
You're neurosis to correct others whom you don't agree with
exacerbates your reputation as someone who's "trying to set the
record straight" only in a world of his own, because you have as much
effect here as Bush-haters do in the US. All that gambling certainly
does seem to have eroded something.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mickeycrimm" <mickeycrimm@y...>
wrote:
>
> Iraq is about oil, period. It's about securing a supply of oil
for
> decades to come. No politician wants to admit that, but that's
the
> truth. That's the ulterior motive. That doesn't make it a bad
> thing. Without oil this country is screwed. Even that tofu the
> whining liberals eat comes by truck.
>I must assume you didn't vote for Bush in the last election since
he
lied to you about Iraq ...
By the way, I also believe oil was a major consideration. However,
IMO it's MORE about the GWBs' oil company buddies making obscene
profits than it is about you and I getting the oil.There was NO immediate threat of oil problems before the war (in
fact
the war has increased the threat). OPECs livelihood depends on
selling oil and they have nothing to gain by cutting off the
supply ... even for decades to come and our reliance on oil
subsides
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
due to hybrids/fuel cells/etc.
It seems to me there is little justification for a statement
like "Iraq is about oil, period." Of course, I doubt I will ever
change your mind.PS. I'm not a liberal.
Pot-kettle-black.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@c...>
wrote:
RGM--You're like an insecure born-again non-committal who runs
around
forums making believe he knows more than anyone who posts reason.
You're neurosis to correct others whom you don't agree with
exacerbates your reputation as someone who's "trying to set the
record straight" only in a world of his own, because you have as
much
effect here as Bush-haters do in the US. All that gambling
certainly
does seem to have eroded something.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
wrote:
>
> --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mickeycrimm"
<mickeycrimm@y...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Iraq is about oil, period. It's about securing a supply of oil
for
> > decades to come. No politician wants to admit that, but that's
the
> > truth. That's the ulterior motive. That doesn't make it a bad
> > thing. Without oil this country is screwed. Even that tofu
the
> > whining liberals eat comes by truck.
> >
>
> I must assume you didn't vote for Bush in the last election since
he
> lied to you about Iraq ...
>
> By the way, I also believe oil was a major consideration.
However,
···
> IMO it's MORE about the GWBs' oil company buddies making obscene
> profits than it is about you and I getting the oil.
>
> There was NO immediate threat of oil problems before the war (in
fact
> the war has increased the threat). OPECs livelihood depends on
> selling oil and they have nothing to gain by cutting off the
> supply ... even for decades to come and our reliance on oil
subsides
> due to hybrids/fuel cells/etc.
>
> It seems to me there is little justification for a statement
> like "Iraq is about oil, period." Of course, I doubt I will ever
> change your mind.
>
> PS. I'm not a liberal.
>
Pot-kettle-black.
I know you're usually left speechless when trying to respond to truth
and reason, but what generation does that set of words come from???
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@c...>
wrote:
>
> RGM--You're like an insecure born-again non-committal who runs
around
> forums making believe he knows more than anyone who posts reason.
> You're neurosis to correct others whom you don't agree with
> exacerbates your reputation as someone who's "trying to set the
> record straight" only in a world of his own, because you have as
much
> effect here as Bush-haters do in the US. All that gambling
certainly
> does seem to have eroded something.
>
> --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
wrote:
> >
> > --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mickeycrimm"
<mickeycrimm@y...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Iraq is about oil, period. It's about securing a supply of
oil
> for
> > > decades to come. No politician wants to admit that, but
that's
> the
> > > truth. That's the ulterior motive. That doesn't make it a
bad
> > > thing. Without oil this country is screwed. Even that tofu
the
> > > whining liberals eat comes by truck.
> > >
> >
> > I must assume you didn't vote for Bush in the last election
since
> he
> > lied to you about Iraq ...
> >
> > By the way, I also believe oil was a major consideration.
However,
> > IMO it's MORE about the GWBs' oil company buddies making
obscene
> > profits than it is about you and I getting the oil.
> >
> > There was NO immediate threat of oil problems before the war
(in
> fact
> > the war has increased the threat). OPECs livelihood depends on
> > selling oil and they have nothing to gain by cutting off the
> > supply ... even for decades to come and our reliance on oil
> subsides
> > due to hybrids/fuel cells/etc.
> >
> > It seems to me there is little justification for a statement
> > like "Iraq is about oil, period." Of course, I doubt I will
ever
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
> > change your mind.
> >
> > PS. I'm not a liberal.
> >
>
Actually, your god: Ronnie (That's right, mommy, I'm dead.) Reagan
used it on severel occasions.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@c...>
wrote:
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
wrote:
> Pot-kettle-black.
I know you're usually left speechless when trying to respond to
truth
and reason, but what generation does that set of words come from???
> --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111"
<rsinger1111@c...>
> wrote:
> >
> > RGM--You're like an insecure born-again non-committal who runs
> around
> > forums making believe he knows more than anyone who posts
reason.
> > You're neurosis to correct others whom you don't agree with
> > exacerbates your reputation as someone who's "trying to set
the
> > record straight" only in a world of his own, because you have
as
> much
> > effect here as Bush-haters do in the US. All that gambling
> certainly
> > does seem to have eroded something.
> >
> > --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain"
<rgmustain@a...>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mickeycrimm"
> <mickeycrimm@y...>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Iraq is about oil, period. It's about securing a supply
of
oil
> > for
> > > > decades to come. No politician wants to admit that, but
that's
> > the
> > > > truth. That's the ulterior motive. That doesn't make it
a
bad
> > > > thing. Without oil this country is screwed. Even that
tofu
> the
> > > > whining liberals eat comes by truck.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I must assume you didn't vote for Bush in the last election
since
> > he
> > > lied to you about Iraq ...
> > >
> > > By the way, I also believe oil was a major consideration.
> However,
> > > IMO it's MORE about the GWBs' oil company buddies making
obscene
> > > profits than it is about you and I getting the oil.
> > >
> > > There was NO immediate threat of oil problems before the war
(in
> > fact
> > > the war has increased the threat). OPECs livelihood depends
on
···
> > > selling oil and they have nothing to gain by cutting off the
> > > supply ... even for decades to come and our reliance on oil
> > subsides
> > > due to hybrids/fuel cells/etc.
> > >
> > > It seems to me there is little justification for a statement
> > > like "Iraq is about oil, period." Of course, I doubt I will
ever
> > > change your mind.
> > >
> > > PS. I'm not a liberal.
> > >
> >
>
If ignorance were bliss you'd be the happiest man alive.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@c...> wrote:
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
> Pot-kettle-black.I know you're usually left speechless when trying to respond to truth
and reason, but what generation does that set of words come from???
I'm the happiest man here, and that's your entire world so that's all
you need to know.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
If ignorance were bliss you'd be the happiest man alive.
Then I guess the old proverb is true.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@c...> wrote:
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
> If ignorance were bliss you'd be the happiest man alive.I'm the happiest man here
wrote: If ignorance were bliss you'd be the happiest man alive.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
> I'm the happiest man here
Then I guess the old proverb is true.
-----------------------------------------------------
Good thinking. After you figure it out, here's the most popular
offering of ignorance from Gaming Today from this week. Pay special
attention to the very last sentence or two. In recent e-mails, seems
you wrote your own epitath.
.....................................................
What Winning Hand Means The Most To A Video Poker Player?
By Rob Singer
How does a video poker player measure his or her success? Some people
may not care. They only want to know the good feeling that they get
from hitting a few winners now and then even if they lose overall
which most people, of course, do. Others try the statistical route,
as they create ridiculously meaningless spreadsheets that track every
aspect of their play. By and large, you'll hear these people say they
win. After all that effort, what else can they possibly say?
Those in my camp of thought have an altogether different set of
priorities. We simply want to and expect to win each and every
time we play, and we apply all known abilities to utilizing a
strategy that has the best chance of making a profit whenever we're
in a casino. Keeping records is best left to the contemporaneous ones
required by the IRS, or to a troup of neurotic nerds. Statistics are
simplified down to the point of counting how much money we have in
our pockets as we leave the casinos vs. how much we walked in with--
something optimal play enthusiasts have lost sight of long ago.
But winning consistently at video poker is a puzzling experience for
nearly every player. Even though I walk into each session with a very
high confidence level, I know that it'll take a huge amount of
concentration and ongoing calculations in order to actually play my
strategy properly and walk out a winner. It's a far cry from so-
called 'advantage players' being roped in as often as possible by
promotions designed to reel them in and take their money!
Those who want to work for the opportunity to become a consistent
video poker winner are only the truly dedicated. Those who'd rather
make believe the math is on their side and they can somehow outsmart
the computers over an obscurely infinite amount of time at the
machines, are those who've opted for the easy way out. It is an
exercise in futility folks, and most of the time - barring extreme
good fortune - they will lose. No question about it.
To play my strategies properly (found FOR FREE on www.vptruth.com )
one must accept the fact that they ONLY way to win is by having good
luck, AND to know EXACTLY how to handle it when it comes along. I
don't make any statements of having any outwardly abilities that can
overcome the advantages of the casinos when it comes to video poker,
because I'm smart enough to admit the fact that no one EVER has an
advantage over a casino. I simply know how to play on MY terms and
not theirs. That's all it takes.
That's why my play strategies concentrate on the value of hitting
four-of-a-kinds, and in particular, the special four-of-a-kinds.
Around 95% of my strategy is based on playing the computer-perfect
play. That's just, in most cases, simple common sense, and if you
don't have that down then you shouldn't be playing. And don't worry
about mistakes
.we ALL make plenty of them especially those who
believe that sitting at the machines for hours on end has any merit
whatsoever. Anyone ever hear of getting fatigued, distracted, or just
bored to death? I accept the error factor. Advantage players never
agree or accept the fact that they make many, many more errors than
they know they make. It's called 'justification for playing far more
than they should'.
I never rely on Royal Flushes to `pull me through' or `help me get my
percentages up'. Instead, where my strategy makes the difference is
in the special plays that go for the quads. When playing Bonus Poker
I only have two instances where I'll break 2-pair to go for four Aces
(400 credits). But most of my play is on what I call the Advanced
Bonus Poker Games (Double Bonus (DB), Double Double Bonus (DDB),
Super Double Bonus (SDB), & Triple Bonus Poker+ (TBP+)) where all
quad 2's, 3's, & 4's pay at least 400 credits, and on SDBP J's, Q's &
K's pay 600.
In each of the games my strategy is comprised of, you can probably
tell that the Ace is an all-powerful card. Therefore, there are a
number of special plays that have me holding a lone Ace or breaking
up 2-pair with Aces where Einstein never would. And the result? Well,
like I said, I don't keep a bunch of statistics because that's not
what's important, but I have no problem saying that without the
plethora of quad Aces I've received over my years of professional
play, my overall profit level could easily be cut in half.
So what's all this say about the mathematical chances of holding a
higher probability hand versus what I sometimes hold? Ha, the
question of the century, and one which I hear all the time. I know
what's what when I'm playing. I know what I'm theoretically giving up
on the draw by making a less-than-optimal hold. But I also know
reality, and the fact that it's just a machine - and machines can do
anything at any time without regard to what they're SUPPOSE to do.
Lets see if you can get this: When dealt a hand where there's several
ways to make the hold (i.e., the `optimal' way or the Singer method)
where the math says the computer perfect play's Expected Value (EV)
might be 2.009, and mine is 1.478, the mathematician is basing the
calculation on what should be the outcome over MILLIONS of hands. But
what of this ONE time right now
..what could be waiting on the draw?
Who's to say the huge winner won't pop up if you toss the nearly
useless `other pair'? Who's to say there's not three more Aces just
waiting to come out and give you a very large W2G? Where is it
written that the machine HAS to follow probabilities, percentages and
theories? Well my friends, I certainly know where it's NOT written,
and that's in each of my play strategies.
There's just nothing like four Aces. Ask anyone. But does `anyone'
play for the Aces every time they should? Absolutely not, and that's
one of the reasons casinos are getting bigger and more beautiful
every year. My favorite hand is getting four Aces dealt without the
kicker on DDB, and going for the extra 1200 credits. Many, many
times, I've held a single Ace (many times when I shouldn't according
to those who say they're smarter than me) and watched three more come
rolling out as if on the red carpet. It does happen. I've even
spelled A-C-E-S on an ACES Bonus Poker game once. The fun part? It
was a very short-pay 6/5 game you know the type the `experts' say
it's not possible to win on! They look at it as if I'm going to play
this machine into infinity. I look at it in a realistic sense: I'm
there for one simple session. Someday they'll get it.
Royals to me are not as exciting as hitting four Aces because I'm
hardly ever anticipating them. Certainly, when dealt four-to-the-
royal the machine's got my attention, but as a video poker player,
how many times does that deal disappoint you? A winning video poker
player has to understand when to go for those hands that were put in
the pay table to make a difference, and when to pass. Almost all
players don't. They eventually come to me.
Any thread on singer's 'popularity' should be short,
indeed micro.
···
--- rsing1111 <rsinger1111@cox.net> wrote:
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain"
<rgmustain@a...> wrote:
wrote: If ignorance were bliss you'd be the happiest
man alive.> > I'm the happiest man here
>
> Then I guess the old proverb is true.
-----------------------------------------------------
Good thinking. After you figure it out, here's the
most popular
offering of ignorance from Gaming Today from this
week. Pay special
attention to the very last sentence or two. In
recent e-mails, seems
you wrote your own epitath.
.....................................................
What Winning Hand Means The Most To A Video Poker
Player?
By Rob SingerHow does a video poker player measure his or her
success? Some people
may not care. They only want to know the good
feeling that they get
from hitting a few winners now and then even if they
lose overall �
which most people, of course, do. Others try the
statistical route,
as they create ridiculously meaningless spreadsheets
that track every
aspect of their play. By and large, you'll hear
these people say they
win. After all that effort, what else can they
possibly say?Those in my camp of thought have an altogether
different set of
priorities. We simply want to � and expect to � win
each and every
time we play, and we apply all known abilities to
utilizing a
strategy that has the best chance of making a profit
whenever we're
in a casino. Keeping records is best left to the
contemporaneous ones
required by the IRS, or to a troup of neurotic
nerds. Statistics are
simplified down to the point of counting how much
money we have in
our pockets as we leave the casinos vs. how much we
walked in with--
something optimal play enthusiasts have lost sight
of long ago.But winning consistently at video poker is a
puzzling experience for
nearly every player. Even though I walk into each
session with a very
high confidence level, I know that it'll take a huge
amount of
concentration and ongoing calculations in order to
actually play my
strategy properly and walk out a winner. It's a far
cry from so-
called 'advantage players' being roped in as often
as possible by
promotions designed to reel them in and take their
money!Those who want to work for the opportunity to become
a consistent
video poker winner are only the truly dedicated.
Those who'd rather
make believe the math is on their side and they can
somehow outsmart
the computers over an obscurely infinite amount of
time at the
machines, are those who've opted for the easy way
out. It is an
exercise in futility folks, and most of the time -
barring extreme
good fortune - they will lose. No question about it.To play my strategies properly (found FOR FREE on
www.vptruth.com )
one must accept the fact that they ONLY way to win
is by having good
luck, AND to know EXACTLY how to handle it when it
comes along. I
don't make any statements of having any outwardly
abilities that can
overcome the advantages of the casinos when it comes
to video poker,
because I'm smart enough to admit the fact that no
one EVER has an
advantage over a casino. I simply know how to play
on MY terms and
not theirs. That's all it takes.That's why my play strategies concentrate on the
value of hitting
four-of-a-kinds, and in particular, the special
four-of-a-kinds.
Around 95% of my strategy is based on playing the
computer-perfect
play. That's just, in most cases, simple common
sense, and if you
don't have that down then you shouldn't be playing.
And don't worry
about mistakes�.we ALL make plenty of them �
especially those who
believe that sitting at the machines for hours on
end has any merit
whatsoever. Anyone ever hear of getting fatigued,
distracted, or just
bored to death? I accept the error factor. Advantage
players never
agree or accept the fact that they make many, many
more errors than
they know they make. It's called 'justification for
playing far more
than they should'.I never rely on Royal Flushes to `pull me through'
or `help me get my
percentages up'. Instead, where my strategy makes
the difference is
in the special plays that go for the quads. When
playing Bonus Poker
I only have two instances where I'll break 2-pair to
go for four Aces
(400 credits). But most of my play is on what I call
the Advanced
Bonus Poker Games (Double Bonus (DB), Double Double
Bonus (DDB),
Super Double Bonus (SDB), & Triple Bonus Poker+
(TBP+)) where all
quad 2's, 3's, & 4's pay at least 400 credits, and
on SDBP J's, Q's &
K's pay 600.In each of the games my strategy is comprised of,
you can probably
tell that the Ace is an all-powerful card.
Therefore, there are a
number of special plays that have me holding a lone
Ace or breaking
up 2-pair with Aces where Einstein never would. And
the result? Well,
like I said, I don't keep a bunch of statistics
because that's not
what's important, but I have no problem saying that
without the
plethora of quad Aces I've received over my years of
professional
play, my overall profit level could easily be cut in
half.So what's all this say about the mathematical
chances of holding a
higher probability hand versus what I sometimes
hold? Ha, the
question of the century, and one which I hear all
the time. I know
what's what when I'm playing. I know what I'm
theoretically giving up
on the draw by making a less-than-optimal hold. But
I also know
reality, and the fact that it's just a machine - and
machines can do
anything at any time without regard to what they're
SUPPOSE to do.Lets see if you can get this: When dealt a hand
where there's several
ways to make the hold (i.e., the `optimal' way or
the Singer method)
where the math says the computer perfect play's
Expected Value (EV)
might be 2.009, and mine is 1.478, the mathematician
is basing the
calculation on what should be the outcome over
MILLIONS of hands. But
what of this ONE time right now�..what could be
waiting on the draw?Who's to say the huge winner won't pop up if you
toss the nearly
useless `other pair'? Who's to say there's not three
more Aces just
waiting to come out and give you a very large W2G?
Where is it
written that the machine HAS to follow
probabilities, percentages and
theories? Well my friends, I certainly know where
it's NOT written,
and that's in each of my play strategies.There's just nothing like four Aces. Ask anyone. But
does `anyone'
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year.
http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/
Singer, why do you think that it's OK to post your Gaming Today
drivel on this site. If anyone wants to read it they can find it. I
don't really think that the purpose of this forum is makketing a
fraud.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@c...>
wrote:
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
wrote:
wrote: If ignorance were bliss you'd be the happiest man alive.
> > I'm the happiest man here
>
> Then I guess the old proverb is true.
-----------------------------------------------------
Good thinking. After you figure it out, here's the most popular
offering of ignorance from Gaming Today from this week. Pay
special
attention to the very last sentence or two. In recent e-mails,
seems
you wrote your own epitath.
.....................................................
What Winning Hand Means The Most To A Video Poker Player?
By Rob SingerHow does a video poker player measure his or her success? Some
people
may not care. They only want to know the good feeling that they
get
from hitting a few winners now and then even if they lose overall
which most people, of course, do. Others try the statistical
route,
as they create ridiculously meaningless spreadsheets that track
every
aspect of their play. By and large, you'll hear these people say
they
win. After all that effort, what else can they possibly say?
Those in my camp of thought have an altogether different set of
priorities. We simply want to and expect to win each and every
time we play, and we apply all known abilities to utilizing a
strategy that has the best chance of making a profit whenever
we're
in a casino. Keeping records is best left to the contemporaneous
ones
required by the IRS, or to a troup of neurotic nerds. Statistics
are
···
simplified down to the point of counting how much money we have in
our pockets as we leave the casinos vs. how much we walked in with-
-
something optimal play enthusiasts have lost sight of long ago.
But winning consistently at video poker is a puzzling experience
for
nearly every player. Even though I walk into each session with a
very
high confidence level, I know that it'll take a huge amount of
concentration and ongoing calculations in order to actually play
my
strategy properly and walk out a winner. It's a far cry from so-
called 'advantage players' being roped in as often as possible by
promotions designed to reel them in and take their money!Those who want to work for the opportunity to become a consistent
video poker winner are only the truly dedicated. Those who'd
rather
make believe the math is on their side and they can somehow
outsmart
the computers over an obscurely infinite amount of time at the
machines, are those who've opted for the easy way out. It is an
exercise in futility folks, and most of the time - barring extreme
good fortune - they will lose. No question about it.To play my strategies properly (found FOR FREE on
one must accept the fact that they ONLY way to win is by having
good
luck, AND to know EXACTLY how to handle it when it comes along. I
don't make any statements of having any outwardly abilities that
can
overcome the advantages of the casinos when it comes to video
poker,
because I'm smart enough to admit the fact that no one EVER has an
advantage over a casino. I simply know how to play on MY terms and
not theirs. That's all it takes.That's why my play strategies concentrate on the value of hitting
four-of-a-kinds, and in particular, the special four-of-a-kinds.
Around 95% of my strategy is based on playing the computer-perfect
play. That's just, in most cases, simple common sense, and if you
don't have that down then you shouldn't be playing. And don't
worry
about mistakes .we ALL make plenty of them especially those who
believe that sitting at the machines for hours on end has any
merit
whatsoever. Anyone ever hear of getting fatigued, distracted, or
just
bored to death? I accept the error factor. Advantage players never
agree or accept the fact that they make many, many more errors
than
they know they make. It's called 'justification for playing far
more
than they should'.
I never rely on Royal Flushes to `pull me through' or `help me get
my
percentages up'. Instead, where my strategy makes the difference
is
in the special plays that go for the quads. When playing Bonus
Poker
I only have two instances where I'll break 2-pair to go for four
Aces
(400 credits). But most of my play is on what I call the Advanced
Bonus Poker Games (Double Bonus (DB), Double Double Bonus (DDB),
Super Double Bonus (SDB), & Triple Bonus Poker+ (TBP+)) where all
quad 2's, 3's, & 4's pay at least 400 credits, and on SDBP J's,
Q's &
K's pay 600.
In each of the games my strategy is comprised of, you can probably
tell that the Ace is an all-powerful card. Therefore, there are a
number of special plays that have me holding a lone Ace or
breaking
up 2-pair with Aces where Einstein never would. And the result?
Well,
like I said, I don't keep a bunch of statistics because that's not
what's important, but I have no problem saying that without the
plethora of quad Aces I've received over my years of professional
play, my overall profit level could easily be cut in half.So what's all this say about the mathematical chances of holding a
higher probability hand versus what I sometimes hold? Ha, the
question of the century, and one which I hear all the time. I know
what's what when I'm playing. I know what I'm theoretically giving
up
on the draw by making a less-than-optimal hold. But I also know
reality, and the fact that it's just a machine - and machines can
do
anything at any time without regard to what they're SUPPOSE to do.
Lets see if you can get this: When dealt a hand where there's
several
ways to make the hold (i.e., the `optimal' way or the Singer
method)
where the math says the computer perfect play's Expected Value
(EV)
might be 2.009, and mine is 1.478, the mathematician is basing the
calculation on what should be the outcome over MILLIONS of hands.
But
what of this ONE time right now ..what could be waiting on the
draw?
Who's to say the huge winner won't pop up if you toss the nearly
useless `other pair'? Who's to say there's not three more Aces
just
waiting to come out and give you a very large W2G? Where is it
written that the machine HAS to follow probabilities, percentages
and
theories? Well my friends, I certainly know where it's NOT
written,
and that's in each of my play strategies.
There's just nothing like four Aces. Ask anyone. But does `anyone'
play for the Aces every time they should? Absolutely not, and
that's
one of the reasons casinos are getting bigger and more beautiful
every year. My favorite hand is getting four Aces dealt without
the
kicker on DDB, and going for the extra 1200 credits. Many, many
times, I've held a single Ace (many times when I shouldn't
according
to those who say they're smarter than me) and watched three more
come
rolling out as if on the red carpet. It does happen. I've even
spelled A-C-E-S on an ACES Bonus Poker game once. The fun part? It
was a very short-pay 6/5 game you know the type the `experts'
say
it's not possible to win on! They look at it as if I'm going to
play
this machine into infinity. I look at it in a realistic sense: I'm
there for one simple session. Someday they'll get it.Royals to me are not as exciting as hitting four Aces because I'm
hardly ever anticipating them. Certainly, when dealt four-to-the-
royal the machine's got my attention, but as a video poker player,
how many times does that deal disappoint you? A winning video
poker
player has to understand when to go for those hands that were put
in
the pay table to make a difference, and when to pass. Almost all
players don't. They eventually come to me.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan" <diversified_slave@y...>
wrote:
Singer, why do you think that it's OK to post your Gaming Today
drivel on this site. If anyone wants to read it they can find it. I
don't really think that the purpose of this forum is marketing a
fraud.
Here's the scoop rather than the emotional rage along with the puny
comments: If it weren't OK, it would either be moderated out or I'd be
told not to post them. That may or may not happen and it isn't up to me.
Next, I'm not marketing a thing so you really don't understand, and
probably look a whole lot better with your foot OUT of your mouth.
Fraud? Check my references. I've found those who call me that are
usually very jealous, and for the most part, are losers at the game I'm
successful at.
Looks like strike 3 to me.
Bob Dancer is the best known video poker player and writer in the
country today. Six years after initiating his career as a
professional gambler in 1994 with a $6,000 bankroll and a strong
desire to win, Dancer and his wife Shirley won more than $1 million
during a six-month period between September 2000 and March 2001.
Million Dollar Video Poker recounts the lessons learned during those
six years, including how to accumulate and manage a bankroll,
evaluate promotions, cope with losing (and winning) streaks,
negotiate with the casinos, deal with other players, find and
exploit the good opportunities, keep up your playing skills, to take
a pot shot on a big game, get the comps that are coming to you, even
going on a diet at the buffet and the benefits of losing.
Never before has a top video poker professional shared so many of
his secrets for winning.
"It's exciting to read about someone winning six-figure jackpots.
It's exciting to read about the huge ups and downs along the way and
the emotional reactions of the player whose money is being won or
lost. Bob Dancer, a video poker pro, shares all this, and more, in
his book Million Dollar Video Poker."
- Stanford Wong, author Professional Video Poker
"I've seen Bob and Shirley win more than $100,000 total at dozens of
casino events I've hosted. Win or lose, though, they're always seen
on the dance floor enjoying themselves and entertaining everyone
else. The Dancers know how to live!"
- Kelly Flynn, top Las Vegas emcee.
"Bob Dancer makes me sick. Here I am, telling everyone they have to
scout the casinos, trick the floormen, and endlessly badger bosses
and hosts for comps, and all he does is show up and play a lousy
machine and he's outcomped me three years running. Dancer talks the
talk and walks the walk and now anyone who plays video poker can
walk with him -- right to the bank."
- Max Rubin, author of Comp City: A Guide to Free Las Vegas Vacations
"Bob has written a book that every video poker player will love.
It's not only a close-up look at the daily life of a working video
poker pro, but also as close as most of us will ever get to the big
leagues of video poker play. Bob Dancer is a pat hand, a one-of-a-
kind whose book pays off 100%. "
- Skip Hughes, publisher of Video Poker Player and host of
www.vphomepage.com
"A surprisingly candid look at the ups and downs, successes and
failures, of a professional video poker player. Bob reveals both the
mistakes he made and the mistakes the casinos made."
- John Robison, author of The Slot Expert's Guide to Playing Slots
"A fascinating read about the mostly hidden (or unknown) high-roller
video poker world, with some valuable information even a low-roller
could use."
- Jean Scott, author of The Frugal Gambler and More Frugal Gambling
"If genius is where inspiration meets perspiration, Bob Dancer is a
video poker genius. His million-dollar saga is not so much one of
luck as of recognizing opportunity and working hard to take
advantage."
- John Grochowski, gambling columnist, Chicago Sun-Times
"An intriguing behind-the-scenes look at the life of a professional
gambler. From the lows of hustling $2 coupons to the highs of
hitting a $400,000 royal flush, Dancer reveals what it took to make
him the winningest video poker player in the world."
- Steve Bourie, author American Casino Guide
"Bob Dancer's adventures of an "edge-hunter" is fascinating reading.
His observations are right on target. Peppered with profiles of
characters, filled with advice and anecdotes about what every player
seeks--how to get the money."
- Howard Schwartz, Gambler's Book Shop
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@c...>
wrote:
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan"
<diversified_slave@y...>
wrote:
> Singer, why do you think that it's OK to post your Gaming Today
> drivel on this site. If anyone wants to read it they can find
it. I
> don't really think that the purpose of this forum is marketing a
> fraud.Here's the scoop rather than the emotional rage along with the
puny
comments: If it weren't OK, it would either be moderated out or
I'd be
told not to post them. That may or may not happen and it isn't up
to me.
Next, I'm not marketing a thing so you really don't understand,
and
probably look a whole lot better with your foot OUT of your mouth.
Fraud? Check my references. I've found those who call me that are
usually very jealous, and for the most part, are losers at the
game I'm
···
successful at.
Looks like strike 3 to me.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan" <diversified_slave@y...>
wrote:
Singer, why do you think that it's OK to post your Gaming Today
drivel on this site.
He doesn't have the slightest clue what an idiot he looks like to the
majority of readers. Anyone who would say he is "utilizing a strategy
that has the best chance of making a profit" when he plays negative
payback machines gets a laugh out of just about everyone.
It appears Rob believes keeping two pair with one of them Aces is the
best EV play on DDB, etc. On just about all the games he listed
breaking up two pair and keeping just the Aces IS the correct
strategy. He writes this stuff in his column and somehow he wants
people to believe he knows what he's talking about.
What a moron. You really have to wonder what it's like living with
ones' head anally inserted. Ask Rob if you're curious.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@c...>
wrote:
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
wrote:
wrote: If ignorance were bliss you'd be the happiest man alive.
> > I'm the happiest man here
>
> Then I guess the old proverb is true.
-----------------------------------------------------
Good thinking. After you figure it out, here's the most popular
offering of ignorance from Gaming Today from this week. Pay special
attention to the very last sentence or two. In recent e-mails,
seems
you wrote your own epitath.
.....................................................
What Winning Hand Means The Most To A Video Poker Player?
By Rob SingerHow does a video poker player measure his or her success? Some
people
may not care. They only want to know the good feeling that they get
from hitting a few winners now and then even if they lose overall
which most people, of course, do. Others try the statistical route,
as they create ridiculously meaningless spreadsheets that track
every
aspect of their play. By and large, you'll hear these people say
they
win. After all that effort, what else can they possibly say?
Those in my camp of thought have an altogether different set of
priorities. We simply want to and expect to win each and every
time we play, and we apply all known abilities to utilizing a
strategy that has the best chance of making a profit whenever we're
in a casino. Keeping records is best left to the contemporaneous
ones
required by the IRS, or to a troup of neurotic nerds. Statistics
are
simplified down to the point of counting how much money we have in
our pockets as we leave the casinos vs. how much we walked in with--
something optimal play enthusiasts have lost sight of long ago.But winning consistently at video poker is a puzzling experience
for
nearly every player. Even though I walk into each session with a
very
high confidence level, I know that it'll take a huge amount of
concentration and ongoing calculations in order to actually play my
strategy properly and walk out a winner. It's a far cry from so-
called 'advantage players' being roped in as often as possible by
promotions designed to reel them in and take their money!Those who want to work for the opportunity to become a consistent
video poker winner are only the truly dedicated. Those who'd rather
make believe the math is on their side and they can somehow
outsmart
the computers over an obscurely infinite amount of time at the
machines, are those who've opted for the easy way out. It is an
exercise in futility folks, and most of the time - barring extreme
good fortune - they will lose. No question about it.To play my strategies properly (found FOR FREE on
one must accept the fact that they ONLY way to win is by having
good
luck, AND to know EXACTLY how to handle it when it comes along. I
don't make any statements of having any outwardly abilities that
can
overcome the advantages of the casinos when it comes to video
poker,
because I'm smart enough to admit the fact that no one EVER has an
advantage over a casino. I simply know how to play on MY terms and
not theirs. That's all it takes.That's why my play strategies concentrate on the value of hitting
four-of-a-kinds, and in particular, the special four-of-a-kinds.
Around 95% of my strategy is based on playing the computer-perfect
play. That's just, in most cases, simple common sense, and if you
don't have that down then you shouldn't be playing. And don't worry
about mistakes .we ALL make plenty of them especially those who
believe that sitting at the machines for hours on end has any merit
whatsoever. Anyone ever hear of getting fatigued, distracted, or
just
bored to death? I accept the error factor. Advantage players never
agree or accept the fact that they make many, many more errors than
they know they make. It's called 'justification for playing far
more
than they should'.
I never rely on Royal Flushes to `pull me through' or `help me get
my
percentages up'. Instead, where my strategy makes the difference is
in the special plays that go for the quads. When playing Bonus
Poker
I only have two instances where I'll break 2-pair to go for four
Aces
(400 credits). But most of my play is on what I call the Advanced
Bonus Poker Games (Double Bonus (DB), Double Double Bonus (DDB),
Super Double Bonus (SDB), & Triple Bonus Poker+ (TBP+)) where all
quad 2's, 3's, & 4's pay at least 400 credits, and on SDBP J's, Q's
&
K's pay 600.
In each of the games my strategy is comprised of, you can probably
tell that the Ace is an all-powerful card. Therefore, there are a
number of special plays that have me holding a lone Ace or breaking
up 2-pair with Aces where Einstein never would. And the result?
Well,
like I said, I don't keep a bunch of statistics because that's not
what's important, but I have no problem saying that without the
plethora of quad Aces I've received over my years of professional
play, my overall profit level could easily be cut in half.So what's all this say about the mathematical chances of holding a
higher probability hand versus what I sometimes hold? Ha, the
question of the century, and one which I hear all the time. I know
what's what when I'm playing. I know what I'm theoretically giving
up
on the draw by making a less-than-optimal hold. But I also know
reality, and the fact that it's just a machine - and machines can
do
anything at any time without regard to what they're SUPPOSE to do.
Lets see if you can get this: When dealt a hand where there's
several
ways to make the hold (i.e., the `optimal' way or the Singer
method)
where the math says the computer perfect play's Expected Value (EV)
might be 2.009, and mine is 1.478, the mathematician is basing the
calculation on what should be the outcome over MILLIONS of hands.
But
what of this ONE time right now ..what could be waiting on the
draw?
Who's to say the huge winner won't pop up if you toss the nearly
useless `other pair'? Who's to say there's not three more Aces just
waiting to come out and give you a very large W2G? Where is it
written that the machine HAS to follow probabilities, percentages
and
theories? Well my friends, I certainly know where it's NOT written,
and that's in each of my play strategies.There's just nothing like four Aces. Ask anyone. But does `anyone'
play for the Aces every time they should? Absolutely not, and
that's
one of the reasons casinos are getting bigger and more beautiful
every year. My favorite hand is getting four Aces dealt without the
kicker on DDB, and going for the extra 1200 credits. Many, many
times, I've held a single Ace (many times when I shouldn't
according
to those who say they're smarter than me) and watched three more
come
rolling out as if on the red carpet. It does happen. I've even
spelled A-C-E-S on an ACES Bonus Poker game once. The fun part? It
was a very short-pay 6/5 game you know the type the `experts'
say
it's not possible to win on! They look at it as if I'm going to
play
this machine into infinity. I look at it in a realistic sense: I'm
there for one simple session. Someday they'll get it.Royals to me are not as exciting as hitting four Aces because I'm
hardly ever anticipating them. Certainly, when dealt four-to-the-
royal the machine's got my attention, but as a video poker player,
how many times does that deal disappoint you? A winning video poker
player has to understand when to go for those hands that were put
in
···
the pay table to make a difference, and when to pass. Almost all
players don't. They eventually come to me.
Bob Dancer is full of shit and has about 30 seconds left of his 15
minutes of fame. Back to work, BOOB, the party's over!!!! Even the
Fiesta is tired of his sorry act and 86'ed his fat azz.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan" <diversified_slave@y...>
wrote:
···
Bob Dancer is the best known video poker player and writer in the
country today. Six years after initiating his career as a
professional gambler in 1994 with a $6,000 bankroll and a strong
desire to win, Dancer and his wife Shirley won more than $1 million
during a six-month period.
Looks like your own head is a little groggy, and it's probably from you
and the missus dragging each other out to be roped in to play more
video poker today like all the other addicts in town. "Just about all?"
What's it like not having a life of your own anymore? How's it feel to
be pathologically connected to a game the the unphysically fit and
lowest of the low class in LV are attached to? Maybe if you can answer
those questions (at least to yourself because you're too image-
conscious to discuss your problems here) you'll be able to figure out
what the most popular gaming column in the world means. And shame on
you for your stupidity!
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
It appears Rob believes keeping two pair with one of them Aces is the
best EV play on DDB, etc. On just about all the games he listed
breaking up two pair and keeping just the Aces IS the correct
strategy. He writes this stuff in his column and somehow he wants
people to believe he knows what he's talking about.
What a moron. You really have to wonder what it's like living with
ones' head anally inserted. Ask Rob if you're curious.